Maybe Ullrich will become an American citizen, run for President, then you can vote for him. Really do not think the powers involved with the TDF give a Rats @$$ about what Ullrich thinks but at least you do.

Maybe Ullrich will become an American citizen, run for President, then you can vote for him. Really do not think the powers involved with the TDF give a Rats @$$ about what Ullrich thinks but at least you do.

I'm no fan of Armstrong or Ullrich, but he does make a valid point about the ridiculousness of trying to revise history.

Armstrong cheated. Yes, he cheated better than everyone else. But he didn't leave it at that. He bullied a whole slew of people to hide what he and his team did. He lied, a lot. He made a lot of money out of those lies. He was aggressive and nasty about it all. He got everything that was coming to him.

History is being written as it should be, then, now and into the future.

Armstrong cheated. Yes, he cheated better than everyone else. But he didn't leave it at that. He bullied a whole slew of people to hide what he and his team did. He lied, a lot. He made a lot of money out of those lies. He was aggressive and nasty about it all. He got everything that was coming to him.

History is being written as it should be, then, now and into the future.

Don't forget, he kicks puppies and kills babies.

Frankly, I agree with Ullrich and really think it is lame to not have a winner for all those years. Armstrong won 7 times and that isn't going to be forgotten anytime soon.

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." - Leo Tolstoy

History is being written as it should be, then, now and into the future.

So this year's TDF should have been the 93rd instead of the 100th? Or would Froome be the 93rd winner of the 100th edition. It's hard to escape the silliness of it all. A more logical way to handle it is to change the name from "Lance Armstrong" to "Lance 'The Cheat' Armstrong" or simply append an asterisk.

So this year's TDF should have been the 93rd instead of the 100th? Or would Froome be the 93rd winner of the 100th edition. It's hard to escape the silliness of it all. A more logical way to handle it is to change the name from "Lance Armstrong" to "Lance 'The Cheat' Armstrong" or simply append an asterisk.

Does Maurice Garin become a 2 time winner? And does Henri Cornet go from being the youngest winner ever to never having even been on the podium.

Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.

I'm not especially disagreeing with Ullrich but I really doubt they're going to do that in the current anti-doping atmosphere. It would send the wrong message of tolerance at this critical time. If they are inclined to do anything they'd probably strip Pantani and maybe Ullrich too if anybody goes back to '97 and tests those samples too.

"I never lost a race because my bike was too heavy".......George Mount

I find it pretty silly that, basically, what Lance was banished for was out-cheating the cheaters. And, even after his public crucifixion, look at all of the suspicion that was flying around this year about Froome and Team Skye. You'd have a very long way to go to show me where Pro Cycling is any better off because they, in effect, simply ran off a bully.

I can never reconcile how Lance's doping is treated compared to how Merckx's doping. One tested positive for dope multiple times, is still celebrated as the greatest cyclist ever, and was invited to be part of the podium celebration for the 100th edition. The other never tested positive, admitted later that he doped, and is now banned forever from even being mentioned as a winner? Besides their personalities, what is the difference between the two? Do we absolve Merckx of any wrongdoing because "everybody doped back then?" Well how do we know he didn't have newer drugs or better dope as has been suggested about Lance here? And now that it has been well established that most if not all of the top contenders racing against Lance were doping too, how does the Merckx argument stand up? Both raced (and doped) during a time when doping was ubiquitous, and both destroyed their competition. So why is one celebrated as the greatest ever to ride a bike and the other is treated as a turd in the punchbowl of the sport?

I did not see any reference/source about the positives of Merckx so I can not tell a word about him but, about Armstrong, the point is that the drugs he used was banned from the competition. In the past there were drugs, yes, but they was not banned because they was not considered harmful (or whatever other reason), so cyclists used them and they were not breaking the rules. Armstrong did use banned drugs, he broke the rules, he was punished for that.

PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.

I did not see any reference/source about the positives of Merckx so I can not tell a word about him but, about Armstrong, the point is that the drugs he used was banned from the competition. In the past there were drugs, yes, but they was not banned because they was not considered harmful (or whatever other reason), so cyclists used them and they were not breaking the rules. Armstrong did use banned drugs, he broke the rules, he was punished for that.

PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.

Merckx was ejected from a Giro and caught 2 other times for testing positive for drugs that were banned at the time.

I can never reconcile how Lance's doping is treated compared to how Merckx's doping.

I don't understand why people find this so hard to understand. Unlike Armstrong, WADA and the WADA code were not in existence when Merckx rode and he never agreed to abide by it. Merckx was subject to the rules and sanctions in place at the time exactly like Armstrong. What opinion anyone has of them is entirely their own decision.

PD: By the way, Froome may be using the ultimate drug but as it is not banned it cannot be punished.

You need to re-read the WADA prohibited list. Not only are specific drugs prohibited, but classes of drugs and methods are included as well. It's highly unlikely that there is anything not covered on the list that would have any real effect.

I find it pretty silly that, basically, what Lance was banished for was out-cheating the cheaters. And, even after his public crucifixion, look at all of the suspicion that was flying around this year about Froome and Team Skye. You'd have a very long way to go to show me where Pro Cycling is any better off because they, in effect, simply ran off a bully.

This is the key and what the Armstrong sycophants keep glossing over.

The secondary message that the Lance supporters seems to want to send is that being a win-at-all costs bully is acceptable. It isn't.

I can never reconcile how Lance's doping is treated compared to how Merckx's doping. One tested positive for dope multiple times, is still celebrated as the greatest cyclist ever, and was invited to be part of the podium celebration for the 100th edition. The other never tested positive, admitted later that he doped, and is now banned forever from even being mentioned as a winner? Besides their personalities, what is the difference between the two? Do we absolve Merckx of any wrongdoing because "everybody doped back then?" Well how do we know he didn't have newer drugs or better dope as has been suggested about Lance here? And now that it has been well established that most if not all of the top contenders racing against Lance were doping too, how does the Merckx argument stand up? Both raced (and doped) during a time when doping was ubiquitous, and both destroyed their competition. So why is one celebrated as the greatest ever to ride a bike and the other is treated as a turd in the punchbowl of the sport?

You could also say murder is murder. But some people convicted serve short sentences and get out on good behavior while others are executed.

Oh, God, where is the justice?!?

The issue is that sentences are based on mitigation or aggravation in the committing of the crime, and a demonstration of remorse.

There were no mitigatory circumstances in Armstrong's case and his remorse has been too late, at best, and feigned at worst.

If people bothered to research, there are various other penalties, both within the sport, and in life, that are being handed out to the people who have admitted doping in that era. Anyone would think those riders have got off scot free. They haven't. The most recent I can think of is Stuart O'Grady, who has been stripped of his membership of a prestigious peak sporting body in Australia.

You need to re-read the WADA prohibited list. Not only are specific drugs prohibited, but classes of drugs and methods are included as well. It's highly unlikely that there is anything not covered on the list that would have any real effect.

While this is true, the issue has always been that the dopers have been one or two steps ahead of the technology used to detect the substance or method. The biological passport goes some way to helping detect anomalies.

The issue is that sentences are based on mitigation or aggravation in the committing of the crime, and a demonstration of remorse.

There were no mitigatory circumstances in Armstrong's case and his remorse has been too late, at best, and feigned at worst.

If people bothered to research, there are various other penalties, both within the sport, and in life, that are being handed out to the people who have admitted doping in that era. Anyone would think those riders have got off scot free. They haven't. The most recent I can think of is Stuart O'Grady, who has been stripped of his membership of a prestigious peak sporting body in Australia.

I always appreciate it when somebody explains my own point or joke back to me.

Anyone would think those riders have got off scot free. They haven't. The most recent I can think of is Stuart O'Grady, who has been stripped of his membership of a prestigious peak sporting body in Australia.